Too young to be surveyed

The most recent publicly released poll is by JWS, taken on 17 January (the Thursday after the last Newspoll) and written up in Tuesday’s Australian Financial Review.

Commissioned by an impeccably-Liberal credentialed consultancy firm (see the photos of shiny Liberals here) it was conducted over all electorates across the country with two-party-preferred margins, on either side, of 6 per cent or less. There are 54 such seats. Sample size was 3,350.

It’s an automated poll, aka “robopoll”. (Reachtel is another robopollster.)

Back in 2010, in the final week of the campaign, JWS conducted a massive 28,000-sample survey that was interesting and obviously ambitious but not a particularly “accurate” pointer to the election result. See that press release here.

(Many other pollsters detest these “robopolls”, as I wrote at the time. )

The press release for the January 2013 JWS survey is here. The headline result is a two-party-preferred swing of 4.8 per cent to the Coalition—in those 54 seats.

Pollsters from time to time survey just marginal seats. The idea is to leave out the irrelevant electorates, but to me this is problematic because before an election no-one really knows where the action will be.

A sample of 54 might seem comprehensive but if there is any kind of swing it probably does not include every seat that will change hands at the 2013 election. If the election did indeed see a 4.8 per cent swing across that group, several seats with margins greater than 6 per cent would certainly change hands.

For example, in 2010 a 2.6 per cent national swing had components that ranged from 13.8 per cent to the Coalition (Fowler, NSW) to 9.5 per cent to Labor (Kingston, SA). The largest swings to result in seats changing hands were in Leichhardt and Bonner in Queensland, 8.6 and 7.3 per cent to the LNP respectively.

Going into the 2010 election there were 21 Labor seats with margins less than 2.6 per cent and only 11 of them went to the Coalition. Another four Labor seats with margins more than 2.6 changed hands, and one seat, La Trobe, moved from Liberal to Labor. (All from notional positions before the election.)

One of the chief findings of this survey, a loss for the government of “10+ seats” in NSW, comes from applying the measured uniform swing in that state to seats (three of them) that weren’t even surveyed. Which defeats the purpose a little.

And of course the survey measures swings in Coalition-held electorates, which in most cases are irrelevant to the outcome. If the swing is 4.8 to the Coalition it will include some double-digit components. (We’re getting circular, I know.)

In other words, most of the the downside of national polls also apply to ones like these, plus some others because seats with margins greater than 6 per cent have been ignored.

I believe it would be better to conduct a national poll, but still (assuming the same sample size) apply the swings per state as JWS has done.

Well, that’s what I reckon.

Anyway, to the poll itself.

First, there’s a wee typo in Table 2: the numbers in the second column should be swapped around.

Table 3 has the headline numbers, the overall 4.8 per cent swing to the Coalition, broken down by state. What stands out is the massive 12.2 per cent swing to the Coalition in NSW. Also a bit surprising is the 2.8 per cent swing to Labor in Queensland.

Applying individual state swings seems to give a much better result for the ALP—a loss of seven seats—than doing it nationally, which yields 17. But to that seven you’d have to add seats in Tasmania (pick a number between 1 and 4) and perhaps Lingiari in the Northern Territory. But it still comes to less than 17.

Table 1 has primary support. Notice that Labor’s support is higher in the country than metro seats. At first blush this is strange, but the sample is over-represented by Labor-held seats outside the capitals. Nothing to see here.

The gender gap does not look large—none to speak of among Labor voters, a small one for the Coalition and larger one for Greens and it all would wash through after preferences to about one and a half percent in the ALP’s favour.

Still in Table 1, the age breakdown is revealing. It actually may point to problems with this survey (and perhaps robopolls in general).

Some 67 per cent of respondents were aged 55 or over—a very large percentage compared with their actual proportion of eligible Australian voters, 28 per cent.

Now, all pollsters over-sample older voters and have trouble getting the youngsters. This is why they often ask specifically for young people.

We don’t know if JWS’s charming robot asks for youngees when appropriate. But if they do they sure didn’t get many this time.

JWS writes that “the final sample has been weighted post survey to the known overall gender and age profile of the polled seats"—as we would expect.

But that small sample of youngsters, 253, is a cause for concern because its results are weird. A 49.6 per cent vote for the Coalition? Support for Labor (even after Greens preferences) lower than the 35–54 group? This goes against all evidence from other opinion polls and much that we believe about voting behaviour.

That cohort comprises around 29 per cent of the voting population, but only 8 per cent of this sample. But (putting it crudely) after weighting it does become (about) 29 per cent of the total number. So if that small sample has a Coalition vote that is too high, the error will multiply with weighting and distort the total vote.

Which seems to have happened here.

Most published polls don’t reveal this level of detail, with sub-sample numbers, so good on JWS for doing it. But it does raise questions about the result.

Anyway, it’s another poll that we add to our basket. The government is behind in the polls.

Lots more to go.

Comments short and on-topic please.

Update: The Member for Dobell Craig Thomson has been arrested. A few commenters have wondered about the timing of Gillard’s announcement yesterday and this. It’s a reasonable thing to wonder, but let’s consider the point made. And nothing about Thomson please, for legal reasons.

- The first several paragraphs have been cut from this post. They were largely irrelevant.

Your Comments

“but, you know, the polls don’t mean much this far out from election day.”
Yes and no to that statement.Yes in the sense that nothing in a poll changes the final result.No in the sense that a poll causes politicians to act in certain ways affecting their chances of success.In the second of those senses,the PM has reacted by nominating the election date.Why she has done so is a matter for speculation,but many (including me),think it is to forestall any leadership challenge.

DBThu 31 Jan 13 (10:36am)

Peter, good work and thanks.

KevinThu 31 Jan 13 (10:50am)

I’m guessing that 3350 sample size is in total, not per electorate. In which case, across 54 electorates, gives us average sample sizes per electorate of a little over 62. That doesn’t seem very meaningful.

Peter BrentThu 31 Jan 13 (10:52am)

They made no electorate-by-electorate predictions.

Mr Dry TeatThu 31 Jan 13 (10:56am)

Do you have any firm methodology for the weightings the pollsters are using to even out the lumps from the missing young voters? Were I doing the numbers, I’d look for an even larger sample across all electorates, perhaps 100,000 respondents, and analyse the results in age blocks, rather than as a mass sample.

Peter BrentThu 31 Jan 13 (11:08am)

That would cost a fortune.

GnomeThu 31 Jan 13 (10:58am)

I have read elsewhere in The Australian today that by announcing an election date Gillard has effectively prevented any by-elections occurring before that date, For example should Thomson or Slipper resign their seats remain vacant until the full Federal election? Is that true? If so it seems there is more to this announcement than apparently generously “giving Australians certainty”.

Face to face, so add a couple of per cent to Coalition vote (or just ignore it).

TylerThu 31 Jan 13 (11:01am)

Peter, great work on the micro, but let’s not forget the macro. This is a minority government, seeking a third term, which according to almost every recent published poll would, were an election held today, suffer a significant adverse swing. In reality, the government needs a swing towards it to win (particularly given your oft-mentioned sophomore effect, which will favour the coalition) and even with 7 odd months to go, the odds of that have to be small.

AnnieThu 31 Jan 13 (11:07am)

I am sticking with the bookies, even Richo sticks with the bookies. Labor $3.65 Liberal $1.65. The bookies have a lot more to lose than the polls.

CentremanThu 31 Jan 13 (11:08am)

Good analysis of the JWS poll and that survey is to be commended for its transparent methodology.
The point is well made about variable swing but this poll does have the advantage that it looks at the seats in the middle of the pendulum and eliminates some of the distortions that come through by votes being locked up in ultra-safe seats.
“Lots more to go"sums up neatly what I was thinking in considerably more words.

AnnieThu 31 Jan 13 (11:12am)

What about the poll on Mamma Mia blog Mumble. It has a huge following amongst the young women of this country. The yummy mummies etc. They ran a poll, who would you want as the next PM? Abbott streaked it in to the astonishment of the organisers, who were pushing Gillard. That poll of the young could be right after all.

Peter BrentThu 31 Jan 13 (11:21am)

Unscientific, presumably online polls like that aren’t worth a pinch of cold water m’dear.

MarkThu 31 Jan 13 (11:16am)

Nice and thanks.

Small typo/word omitted in last sentence here?...maybe Less support for Labor etc

“But that small sample of youngsters, 253, is a cause for concern because its results are weird. A 49.6 per cent vote for the Coalition? Support for Labor (even after Greens preferences) than the 35–54 group?”

Peter BrentThu 31 Jan 13 (11:21am)

Thanks. I should groupsource this.

SkipperThu 31 Jan 13 (11:16am)

Would it be reasonable to suggest that if the ALP internal polling was consistent with Newspoll then Gillard would have announced an election sooner rather than later? Announcing now, while giving room to change the date down the track (as the date is not fixed until writs are issued) suggests , they don’t lkike their chancesa at the moment.
Also does announcing now mean that they could put up an argument that any potential byelections (Thomson, Slipper?)could be put off?
Looks to me this is a desperate move to try to prevent Rudd from challenging again but if their own polling looks terminal the backbench may roll Gillard anyway.

Gavin HThu 31 Jan 13 (11:17am)

The JWS poll excluded key seats now potentially up for grabs with a greater than 6% margin.

1) Tasmanian seats all well and truly in play, Denison and Franklin potentially the most challenging for the Coalition. Though by preferencing Wilkie they can stymie the ALP.

This would include Dicks Adams held Lyons. Since he is no longer viewed as standing up for the forestry workers against Feederal/State/Green alliance. He had the courage to stand up against Latham’s forest craziness.

2) Lyne and New England both clearly in the coalitions sites.

3) I thought “internal polling” showed that some safe NSW ALP seats are up for grabs.

I think a coalition win by 20+ seats is the most likely outcome.

Regarding the early election call, I actually think the PM has shot herself in the foot. Rudd supporters now have a time frame into which to build for a challenge. Bad polls from here on in and especially in June/July could mean that a change of ALP leader is inevitable. The change of Leader puts back the element of surprise in the ALP’s hands.

KenThu 31 Jan 13 (11:18am)

Well Peter...if it comes down to Western Sydney that will give Lib supporters a great deal of heart. The constant reminder of NSW Labor will continue for months......none of it to Labor’s advantage. Beside......not all Labor supporters take heart form this........did you read Richo’s article in this same paper?

SleetmuteThu 31 Jan 13 (11:18am)

If the true figure for 18-34 for the Coalition is 40% instead of close to 50%, that would reduce the overall 2PP lead by about 3%, putting it at about 52-48. That’s probably closer to how things stand at the moment.

Why didn’t they just keep calling until they got enough youngsters? That’s what the regular pollsters do and the automated approach would presumably be a lot cheaper. Seems like a wasted opportunity.

GnomeThu 31 Jan 13 (11:28am)

Re my question about whether by-elections (in the event of perhaps Thomson resigning), would be deferred until the full election - I have been unable to find the reference I mentioned. It may have been someone’s posted comment in which case possibly inaccurate. Will post link if I find it.

Peter BrentThu 31 Jan 13 (11:33am)

It may have been here, in comments. I doubt there’s anything to it.

CameronThu 31 Jan 13 (11:32am)

Not sure why you are so keen to write Labor off based on current polls, Mumble.

You seemed to think the apparent swing away from Labor in the last Newspoll was evidence that they were finished, but the latest poll has them well within striking distance.

If you ignore the noise, they are probably sitting steadily at a greatly improved position of 52/48, two party preferred, and given some of the promises Abbott has made, he has to find billions and billions of savings, or simply ditch an apparent promise to balance the budget.

The polls will tighten. It’s anybody’s race, as I’ve been saying for at least a year.
You could be suffering from confirmation bias.

Peter BrentThu 31 Jan 13 (11:37am)

I have seen Gillard and Swan campaign and have great faith in them.

SoberblokeThu 31 Jan 13 (11:33am)

I’d really be interested to see bookies’ odds of another hung parliament. (Apology to Senator Xenophon).

The MachiavellianThu 31 Jan 13 (11:38am)

Said I would not respond until an election was called. It’s been a long three days! Seats that may go Coalition outside the average “swing.”
New England 21.6% Denison 15.9% Lyne 12.8% Franklin 10.9% Griffith 8.5% Barton 6.9%

MarkThu 31 Jan 13 (11:53am)

“
Peter Brent
Thu 31 Jan 13 (11:21am)

Thanks. I should groupsource this.
“

HA! Pleasure. At least you know we (some of us) actually read the words and stuff .

CentremanThu 31 Jan 13 (11:53am)

Well Annie your inside tip about a very early election proved spectacularly wrong.

Ray SandersonThu 31 Jan 13 (11:56am)

Thank you, Peter, for pointing out here that swings are never consistent across all seats. In amongst all the partisan opinions on your blogs where commentators cherry pick any and every figure to support their bias, the basic facts are often ignored.

The MachiavellianThu 31 Jan 13 (12:01pm)

“SIC)” There is a secret agenda hidden in the claptrap somewhere and it probably involves Peter Slipper and Craig Thomson.

Slipper will no doubt announce his resignation soon to protect his superannuation. With the Thomson matter, anything could happen. With a general election already announced there would be no constitutional requirement for by-elections to be held in either seat.”
Peter this was in your “letters to the Editor” May be what you were refering to?

Peter BrentThu 31 Jan 13 (12:31pm)

I thinks that’s rubbish.

Janey has MovedThu 31 Jan 13 (12:05pm)

“I have seen Gillard and Swan campaign “

I have seen Abbott.

GWSThu 31 Jan 13 (12:11pm)

Question: assuming Tony Abbott wins the election, and assuming the Greens retain the Balance of Power (even after July 1st), and assuming Abbott cannot pass the recision legislation for the Carbon Tax, if he calls a Double Dissolution election BEFORE July 1st 2014, when would the next half-Senate election be called? (Ignoring for the moment that House elections are usually held at the same time, though not always, something Menzies seemed to be fond of). Would the half-Senate election need be held 2014-2015? Or would the new expiry date of half the Senate (say, the bottom six Senators per state in the order of election), be July 1st 2017 and a half-Senate (and likely House) election be held prior to then? Apologies for the long-winded question, but I find the Double Dissolution mechanism quite fascinating. And I suspect the seventh instalment is on its way!

Post A Comment

We welcome your comments. All comments should be concise,
focus specifically on the topic for discussion and are submitted
for possible publication on the condition that they may be edited.
Comments that are derogatory toward the blogger or at other comments,
or those which may potentially incite racial hatred or violence,
are defamatory or in contempt of court, will not be published.
Please provide a screen name and
suburb/location - these will be published
.
We also require a working email address - not for publication,
but for verification.

* Required fields

Screen Name:* Required

Location:

Email Address:* Required

Your Comments:* Required

Email To A Friend

* Required fields

Subject:* Required

Recipient's Email:* Required

Your Name:* Required

Your Email:* Required

Your Email:* Required

Information provided on this page will not be used for any other purpose
than to notify the recipient of the article you have chosen.

Share This Article

From here you can use the Social Web links to save 'Too young to be surveyed' to a social
bookmarking site.

Peter Brent

Peter Brent started Mumble in 2001; the old site can be found at http://mumble.com.au. He mainly goes on about the numbers in electoral behaviour and voters' motivations that drive them. In 2009 he finished a PhD in political science which dealt with electoral administration, a topic he also sometimes goes on about. You can follow him on Twitter at @mumbletwits.